Tanier points out how ridiculous it is that Rodgers, no slouch by any means, ranks first all-time in quarterback rating. He hit on the two biggest reasons Rodgers ranks inappropriately high on the list, the same two reasons I cited when discussing Tony Romo's yards per attempt ratio back in August. First, he plays in the modern era, and completion percentage and therefore passer rating are higher now than ever. Second, he's played during only the "fat" part of his career, missing out on the lean years as an inexperienced, 22-year-old and an over-the-hill, 38-year-old.

In the Romo post, I was looking at yards per attempt, not passer rating. Another key statistic is left out of both formulas: sacks. Rodgers led the league in sacks in '09, although he's matched the league average in sack rate in his other two seasons. A complete picture of Rodgers the passer would include sacks and adjusted for both era and age. Essentially, it's nothing more than trivia to note that Rodgers has the greatest passer rating in NFL history. A much better question would be, where does he rank in ANY/A+ (ANY/A adjusted for era) from ages 25 through 27? The table below shows the top QBs from 1969 to 2010 in ANY/A+, with a minimum of 672 pass attempts (224 attempts is the minimum attempts required in a single season to be listed among the leaders in per-attempt numbers) and 30 games played (to filter out players who are less comparable to Rodgers):

Rodgers still looks good, of course: he's a very good, if not great, quarterback. But he drops from being the best ever in a flawed statistic to merely being one of the top 20 quarterbacks over the past 40 years in a more reasoned analysis. He looks as good as Joe Montana or Troy Aikman or Dan Fouts, but not necessarily any better than Jim Everett, Daunte Culpepper or Scott Mitchell. Three of the top four quarterbacks at this age failed to make the Hall of Fame one day, although Jones was on pace before injury while Anderson and Esiason are perhaps the two best quarterbacks to have been passed over for the Hall half a dozen times or more.

The obvious response, of course, is "Are you kidding me? Aaron Rodgers has as much in common with Duante Culpepper, Jim Everett and Scott Mitchell as he does with Giselle. Those guys stunk." But that's only with the benefit of hindsight.

At age 25, Everett led the NFL in touchdown passes. The next season, he did it again, while jumping to second in yards per attempt. At age 27, he made his first Pro Bowl. From '88 to '90, Everett ranked 2nd in pasing yards each season. All three seasons, he ranked in the top ten in ANY/A, finishing 5th, 2nd and 9th.

In 1993, at age 25, Scott Mitchell replaced an injured Dan Marino and posted impressive numbers, ranking 2nd in the league in net yards per attempt and third in ANY/A. He went to the Lions in the off-season, but had a dissapointing first year in Detroit. Then, at age 27, Mitchell tore up the league, finishing in the top three in passing yards, completions and touchdowns, while ranking fifth in adjusted net yards per attempt.

At age 25, Duante Culpepper seemed to be going backwards. As a first-year starter ate age 23, Culpepper led the league in touchdown passes and averaged 7.3 ANY/A. That ratio dropped to 5.3 in '01 and then 4.9 in '02. He rushed for 609 yards and 10 touchdowns, but was regressing as a passer. But Culpepper turned things around at age 26, ranking third in the league in AY/A, fourth in ANY/A and even third in passer rating. Then he exploded in 2004, challenging Peyton Manning for much of the season for the title of best quarterback in the league. Culpepper had a 110.9 QB rating, led the league in passing yards, set a league record for most total yards in a season, and averaged 8.0 ANY/A, a mark that had only been reached eight times before 2004 in league history.

Rodgers? At age 25, he ranked 10th in ANY/A. The next year, he finished 6th, and in 2010 he ranked third in our favorite metric. He ranked 10th in net yards per attempt in '09 and then 2nd this year in that statistic. Rodgers looks the part of a great quarterback, and has almost no blemishes on his resume (although for awhile, detractors liked to say that he couldn't win close games). He's smarter than Scott Mitchell, more consistent than Duante Culpepper and more athletic than Jim Everett.

As far as consistency goes, Rodgers is part of a select group: he's one of just five quarterbacks to produce an AY/A+ of 110 or better in all three years from ages 25 to 27, joining Troy Aikman, Ken Anderson, John Hadl and Joe Montana. So I'm certainly not going to make any prediction that Rodgers will turn into the next Jim Everett. If I had to guess, I'd say that Rodgers will go on to be remembered as one of the great quarterbacks of the '10s. I just wanted to note that it's important to look at things the correct way, and using passer rating is anything but that. He looks like a current and future star, but he hasn't been so much better than every other quarterback in history that his future is preordained. While he's got some fantastic comparables, a more complete analysis would note that he hasn't been noticeably better than some guys who ended up peaking at age 27.

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 30th, 2011 at 2:03 pm and is filed under Quarterbacks.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Another great example--#18 on your list, Carson Palmer. While probably due to injury, he has never been quite as good as the media in general thought he would be. He did look the part of a great QB for a few years however. Hope Rodgers turns out better--he better be careful when running, though.

The latest hot QB of the moment is pretty much always #1 all time, or near to it, because passer rating *hugely* over-weights completion pct., and completion pct has been steadily rising since the rules started changing to favor passing in 1978. This is why the NFL Hall of Fame All-Time Top 20 Passers list includes only QBs who played in the last 16 years. (Imagine a MLB-Cooperstown official all time top-20 batting list that excluded everyone from Ty Cobb through George Brett but placed the baseball equivalent of Duante Culpepper at #9 all time.)

Passer rating so over-values completions that passes that *lose* yards in *any* amount get a rating of 79.2 Hit 10 of 10 to lose 10 yards -- or lose 990 yards, no matter -- your rating is 79.2. About a quarter of NFL QBs this year had ratings lower than than 79 and could have improved their rating by intentionally dumping more passes for losses.

This is no different than a system for rating baseball players that rewards batters for striking out or rewards pitchers for giving up hits.

The Tanier article says "The passer rating did a fine job selecting the best quarterback in the NFL in the context of the 1970s..." but that's just wrong, it was even *worse* back then.

It was desinged in 1970 to set the average rating at 50 even while loss passes produced a rating of 79 -- Pro Bowl QB quality. In 1971 the league average rating was 59.3, and all but four QBs in the league could have boosted their ratings (most by *a lot*) by dumping off a lot of passes for losses, the more the better. With the big increase in the average completion rate since then, it's actually become relatively less distorting, so "only" about 25% of QBs could do that today

Of course back then this also highly biased the ratings in favor the short-throwing Bob Griese, Bart Starr, Len Dawson, etc at the expense of the long-throwing Unitas, Namath, Jurgenson, etc. It's why on the all-time list today Brian Griese (not Bob) is rated way higher than Unitas.

As to other problems with the rating, in the 1980s Pete Palmer noted that it reduces to...

"yards per attempt with a bonus of 20 yards for each completion, an additional 80 yards for each touchdown, and a 100-yard penalty for each interception. So two completions for ten yards each are worth the same as one completion for forty yards and one incompletion. A ninety-yard pass play from goal line to the opponent ten is worth the same as a ten yard TD pass..."

Does that formula make sense for any era? And Palmer understated things there.

Getting 99 yards going 1 of 2 gives a rating of 95.8. Gaining 79 fewer yards but with one more completion gives a higher rating: 2 of 2 for 20 yards = 105.5. Hitting one pass for a 4-yard TD gives a rating of 123.

The Passer Rating favors completion % and the LEAGUE makes making completions easier than ever. It wasn't long ago that the NFL was asking 'where are all of the young QBs'? Well, the league did something about it. They MADE them out of players that I have no idea how REALLY good they are---relative to QBs 15-30 years ago. The repeated re-emphasis on stricter enforcement of the 5-yard chuck rule and the LITERAL hands-off policy for QBs has artificially enhanced pass offense.

Makes you wonder what the Miami Dolphins are doing------and how their management team all got contract extensions, because they appear to have NO clue how to take advantage of the ever-increasing skewing of the rules towards passing the football.

One of the things I could never stand about Passer Rating is the non-inclusion of the sack. It is a pass play. Yards lost via sack are subtracted from a TEAM'S net passing yard total----------yet the QB suffers nothing in his rating. A QB who destroys possessions because he keeps eating the ball -----because the almighty completion % is preserved------ is favored over a QB who gets rid of the ball, saving the team yardage and making a 1st down a greater possibility on that seriesRunning backs get yardage subtracted fromm their personal totals when they get buried for a loss--------why not QBs? The NFL determines which are pass plays, so why can't the rating system recognize this?

Quarterbacks have some to do with sacks, but placing too much emphasis is just as flawed as the quarterback rating system in itself. The Green Bay line in '09 was shuffled numerous times, even in games, due to numerous amounts of injuries. There were players moved from center go guard, from guard to tackle, from tackle to guard, to make up for injuries. This is just one small example, and as you noted Rodgers' has shown no penchant for taking too many sacks in either other season or this post-season. It just shows that there is more to it than simple quarterback numbers, and shouldn't be stressed nearly as heavily as you emphasize.

As long as he doesn't lay a Craig Morton-type egg this week, he'll likely be #1 all time in playoff passer rating as well (you need 150 attempts to qualify).

Personally I'm rooting for the Craig Morton performance, because I'm already tired of the media trying to find the next QB they can call the best in the league. Rodgers has had a great start, but let's settle down and realize it's far from the best we've ever seen.

Then should RBs NOT be penalized for losses behind a re-shuffled line? I understand a bad line can GET a QB sacked before he has a chance. But ZERO credit goes to a guy who gets rid of the football. There are a lot of TEAM elements that make it easier for a passer----and none of them are factored into passer rating, so why start trying to 'even the playing field' because somebody has a re-shuffled line? I mean, somebody ELSE has substandard recievers and somebody else has no running game and somebody else WANTS everybody out in the pass pattern (limiting protection), so just call it as it happens. JMO. I agree it's a horribly flawed rating system.

Not sure what to make of sacks, statistically. Dom Capers has shown the Packers a lowlight reel of how to not tackle Roethlisberger. He said they sacked him 5 times last year, and should have had 5 more, but Ben got away. The next to last play of the game is very impressive, because Jenkins has him with both arms and still gets shaken off. That would be game over right there for most QBs.

Who knows.... if they made a 'Jim Everett Rule' and protected HIM from harm back then (like the league takes care of QBs today), maybe he doesn't start hearing footsteps like he did (effectively compromising his play).

QBs have NO fear. Why should they----if there's an injury, the league outlaws that kind of play. That has a tremendous effect on passing (no fear). Fear is what makes teams keep an extra TE in. Fear is what made teams keep their FB in to block. It used to be gutsy to go with an empty backfield. But now you can't touch the QB. Max-protect used top be about more than executing a play.... it used to be about keeping your QB alive. But now the LEAGUE takes care of that for you.

There used to be a REASON why teams didn't run certain plays/ offenses.... nobody ran the option------why?--------because it would get your QB killed. Why don't the same rules apply NOW?..... i.e., 'If you don't want your QB hurt------PROTECT HIM'. Protect him by NOT sending everybody out in a pattern.... protect him by RUNNING the ball more and halting the pass rush NATURALLY through play selection.

If the NFL ever thought the public wanted to see the option, they'd legislate it somehow so the QB couldn't be hurt with artificial protections.

Imagine if Tom Brady still feared the same injury. He might not be the same QB. But they have the 'Brady Rule'. NO fear of getting hit low, no matter who he feels around his feet in the pocket. IMO, if the Patriots want to protect their QB more, THEY should have to protect him.... and if he can't function without keeping 2 TEs in, so be it.

Good stuff. How come no one is talking about the insanely low sack rate of Dan Marino in that table.. 32 sacks on 1673 attempts, roughly half as often as Peyton Manning (70 sacks on 1704 attempts), who is notoriously hard to sack.

Re: #5, remember, as JKL documented here last year, sack rates are more closely associated with the individual QB than the offensive line. In fact, a QB's sack rate can be attributed to the skill of the individual QB more so than any of the compenents of the passer rating. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to give Rodgers as much blame for his high sack rate as we give him credit for his high passer rating.

Rodgers has had an average to above average sack rate in each of his three years as starter. He had a high sack rate in limited appearances in relief as Favre's backup. Plus, he also took a high number of sacks in college. I think it's fair to conclude that his ability to feel the rush and tendency to take too many sacks is one of his few weaknesses.

The real question should be whether we can expect Rodgers to improve in this area with experience, or whether it will always be a problem as it was with Steve Young, ultimately shortening his career.

As I noted, I'm not taking blame completely off of Rodgers for sacks taken in '08, but it is hard to justify when there were obvious differences between that season and the two others. My point wasn't that Rodgers should be forgiven, it was more that sacks are probably closer to mutual fault than on either more the line or more the quarterback, just as a tipped pass interception should be put on both the receiver and quarterback and not just one or the other.

Found something interesting from his college career that can lend some more support to what I feel about Rodgers' pro career.

He's a very good QB when the game is close, but when it comes time to win the game, to seize the moment, he really struggles. We saw it a year ago in Arizona when he went from leading 5 straight TD drives, but when OT came and it was time to win the game, he's overshooting a wide open Greg Jennings and then coughing up the game-ending fumble for a TD.

In 2004 California lost one game, to USC on the road, 23-17. Rodgers was 14/14 passing in the first half. They trailed 23-17 to start the 4th quarter. He completed his first 23 passes. He fumbles on the first play of the 4th quarter. On the next drive, he throws his first two incompletions of the day in USC territory, and has to settle for a FG, which is missed. One more chance. He was then 29/31 passing leading up to a 1st & goal at the 9 yard line in the final two minutes. But then he was sacked and threw 3 incompletions and USC won the game.

To me a game like that is Aaron Rodgers in a nutshell. Tough competition or not, he'll make great throws, keep you in the game until the end, but when it comes time to make the game-winning play, you just do not have the same faith in him to deliver.

Marino and Manning at the top are not a surprise, but Doug Williams was to me. I thought it might have something to do with Joe Gibbs (Rypien at #4), but Williams' Sack%+ was extremely good with TB as well as WAS. Note that Marino's numbers were on over 8000 attempts while Williams' were on 2507.

Tomczak was another surprise to me. Harrington really didn't get sacked much, especially in his first 3 seasons, although he was bad in many other ways as ANY/A+ shows.

Everett's rank of 11th was very good but not great, though if I tighten the attempt criteria to >4000 he ranks 6th.

I wonder if DeBerg was able to last so long because he didn't get sacked much? And to digress, have you ever considered who Steve DeBerg lost his job to? Montana, Elway, Young, Testaverde, and Krieg. Okay Krieg wasn't that much and Testaverde doesn't measure up to the other 3, but that's quite a list.

Speaking of Krieg, here's the list of post-1978 QBs with over 4000 attempts and Sack%+ of 95 or less:

So we're just going to include the one other element that Rodgers happens to be weak in and resort? How about rushing? How about rushing touchdowns? How about fumbles? And that doesn't even include variances due to quality of offensive lines the said statistics were accomplished behind. Everyone who remembers the Dolphins knows they threw up one of the best, most expensive, offensive lines to play behind and Rodgers has played behind one of the poorest overall O-lines going.

and I assure you Rodgers will rise up relative to the others. Let's look at a rating that seeks to include the outcome of every time "the rock" is in the QB's hands instead of taking a known flawed statistic and stack in one stat that simply modifies that questionable stat downward for the guy who happened to have a bad figure for that stat. Toss in other stats that are relevant to modern quarterbacking in these highly skilled, low mistake tolerant times.

Lastly, I agree that the NFL has drastically changed the passing game over the last 30 years. And the assumption is always the modern QB's owe their stats to them as if they couldn't go back in time and play in the more rough and tumble era. Well, it works both ways, because I highly doubt the Dan Marino method of "drop back in the pocket and throw to the guy that is open" would work so swell today. The players are faster and stronger and generally smarter than they were back then. So how about we modify these cross generational statistics for the fact that offensive playbooks have quadrupled in size over the last 30 years? Fran Tarkenton is about the only I guy I can think of off the top of my head who I think would have been successful if teleported to the modern era. Great thrower, reasonably durable, could run/rush, and was smart enough. Marino would have sunk like a stone, and I don't think Montana would have thrived.

After a day's contemplation, I'd also like to add a couple of things. How is it completely fair to take simply an age range versus actual on field experience range? The initial post discusses how the age range of 25-27 was used as if this is some given "fat" period of every player's career by some absolute. I think it is more because it is the best crossover period between youth and experience, just like a person's late twenties/early thirties may be the best period of adulthood, the crossover between youth, whatever god given beauty you have, and money rolling in.

So Rodgers is just SUPPOSED to have "fat" period skills even though he had very little on field experience because he was 25-27. It seems as if he is being punished for his inexperience that the others who played from 22-24 would already have worked out of their system. It's somewhat apples and oranges. I recomprised the table taking into account 22-24 and the average sacks for even the top guys isn't that much lower than Rodger's first three years, while their QB ratings are much lower.

I'll be the first to admit that Rodgers is helped by the modern era of rules. I also think he, like Favre and Montana and Young, benefits from a WCO that inflates ratings too. But I don't care that an article that may be trying to caution people on the short comings of the popular QB rating by seeming to be concentrating on Rodgers specifically and trying to downgrade him. I think his overall performance - passing, rushing, low INT's, high TD's, complex scheme (it is written that the playbook was not "dumbed down" when the switch to Rodgers took place, which you wouldn't expect having studied in it, of course), and overall poise - has been pretty darn good, especially given the scrutiny he was under. How many other QB's have to take over for a legend under such acrimony and fan hatred?

Rodgers does have some things to learn that only time on the field and film breakdown will show him. But I don't think articles trying take one component of QB'ing that he may be artificially high in and tries to take just him down a peg by some intention isn't fair in my opinion.

One last general comment, until I see an adjustment factor for dome QB's and non-dome QB's (and one might as well throw in San Diego too, so perhaps an adjustment for "ideal condition" QB's and "non-ideal" condition QB's, I'll take some of these advanced calculations with a grain of salt. Once one endeavors to stray from clean x/y's and make some point, it can tend to become part of the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" maxim.